You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

The problem with your argument is that whether the US is allowed to get nuclear weapons is not at issue since they already have them. That conversation already happened, unfortunately.

Besides, even if you assume that the US is unstable, which I disagree with, giving nukes to more unstable countries solves nothing.

Yes but the US could be forced to get rid of (all) of their own nuclear weapons based on the argument that they are dangerous to other countries. It won't happen because they are the International Council of Everything. The US is not unstable like Iran, but it's not harmless. I'm not talking just about the protection of American citizens who are for the most part, yes, very safe. There are millions of people out there in the Middle East who are afraid of Western domination. And their fear is accurate. Yes, letting unstable countries build up their supply doesn't solve anything. Neither does letting the US maintain their supply while asking some other polar-opposite countries to give up theirs. From our view, yes, we want to be well-protected with back-up. From their view, they want the same thing also.

Hey, Edahn...
As far as I know, the US is way more belligerent and unpredictable, and thus far it is the only country to have used nukes upon another country.

The last real war Iran was in was in 1982, when they got invaded by Iraq under Saddam Hussein.
I don't think that qualifies as "belligerent", with regards to that the US has started a whole bunch of wars since then.
It's funny to watch people who so fervently believes in something that they refuse to see the truth.
Calling me a nazi doesn't help, Edahn. I am no nazi or anti-semite.
The facts of what the combined efforts of Israel and the US with UN help has done in the middle east are just not that flattering.
Try to look at it from an objective standpoint.

Terrorism in its entirety, even suicide bombings, are just desperate attempts to fight a force impossibly stronger and more advanced than their own.
Punishing the Palestinians and other arabs for what the Jewish people suffered during the holocaust just isn't right.
Before 1948 the Jews and Arabs in the area lived in peace.
They didn't start this, they got invaded and driven away from their homes.
What the state of Israel has done is no better than what Hitler did to the Jews.

I think you realize this, deep down.
One of the less flattering parts of human nature, however, is a defensive mechanism in our psyche that makes us hate those that we have done ill to.
Hatred does not solve any problems, especially when it is not rightfully justified.

Mightier than the tread of marching armies is the power of an idea whose time has come

Hey, Edahn...
As far as I know, the US is way more belligerent and unpredictable, and thus far it is the only country to have used nukes upon another country.

We're talking about the current state of affairs, not what happened years ago, as we're making a determination NOW, based on Iran's CURRENT STATE, not it's historical state.

CURRENTLY, Iran is extremely belligerent and threatening. It subsidizes terrorism in Lebanon and in Gaza. It uses rhetoric to create international tension, suspicion, and animosity. It suppresses free speech in its own country. It has systematically prevented the UN's inspection of its supposedly peaceful nuclear program. You have to be incredibly intellectually dishonest to compare that to what the US is currently trying to do in the world. Sadly, I don't put it beneath you.

The last real war Iran was in was in 1982, when they got invaded by Iraq under Saddam Hussein.
I don't think that qualifies as "belligerent", with regards to that the US has started a whole bunch of wars since then.
It's funny to watch people who so fervently believes in something that they refuse to see the truth.

Tell me about it.

Terrorism in its entirety, even suicide bombings, are just desperate attempts to fight a force impossibly stronger and more advanced than their own.

Punishing the Palestinians and other arabs for what the Jewish people suffered during the holocaust just isn't right.
Before 1948 the Jews and Arabs in the area lived in peace.
They didn't start this, they got invaded and driven away from their homes.
What the state of Israel has done is no better than what Hitler did to the Jews.

I think you realize this, deep down.

Deep down I realize you're a who's straying off topic again because he can't think straight. This is about whether denying Iran nuclear weaponry is "fair," not how racist and idiotic your arguments are and how poor your understanding of history is.

One of the less flattering parts of human nature, however, is a defensive mechanism in our psyche that makes us hate those that we have done ill to.
Hatred does not solve any problems, especially when it is not rightfully justified.

I thought about it. You're absolutely right. Terrorism can be understood and justified. Israel is a Nazi fascist state. Iran should be able to get nukes because the US used one 60 years ago. It all makes sense now. Thank you for the good advice, I appreciate it.

I wonder why the heck we don't just send up an F-22 and then just say that Ahmadinejad's plane suffered a malfunction and it's unknown as to his whereabouts.

Connect the dots. Ahmadinnerjacket is aytollahs bitchboy. He has no real power. His purpose is to provoke the US into doing something reckless.

The Revolutionary Council would piss themselves with glee if that troll got assassinated - it would give them a solid moral highground over Great Satan and those bloodthirsty Jews Zionists in the world politics, not to mention a great excuse to continue on their path of seeking "peaceful nuclear energy"

Listen to me, baby, you got to understand, you're old enough to learn the makings of a man.

Yes, letting unstable countries build up their supply doesn't solve anything. Neither does letting the US maintain their supply while asking some other polar-opposite countries to give up theirs.

Sure it does; the United States is on the Security Council, which is the means through which the use of Nuclear Weapons is supposed to be contained. That's the status quo that has maintained a degree of international stability (i.e. no Nuclear war, even throughout the Cold War) for sixty years. And frankly, I don't really care if its an unfair double-standard when viewed through a simplisticly relativistic lens; I think preventing Iran from possesing Nuclear weapons is in both the national interests as well as the interests of humanity in general.

I think as long as they don't expect the other person to change to be more like them, they can be highly complementary and appreciative of the other's strengths.

Originally Posted by Rebe

US has no doubt made serious mistakes (Hiroshima, etc).

Says you.

A land invasion of Imperial Japan was estimated to cause 1,000,000 casualties.
The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki resulted in ~200,000 casualties.

I'm guessing your history knowledge is a bit rusty, so let me refresh it

The Japanese in the WW2 weren't the surrendering kind. They were the first ones to ram planes into things before most Arabs knew wtf a plane was. It was every Japanese person's duty to give their life for a living god Emperor, and school children were given leaflets on how to cut a throat properly and trained on how to charge with a bamboo spear.

Now I hope you understand that given the circumstances of WW2, all beligerents were required to surrender unconditionally. And, unfortunately, at the time, there was no such thing as precision guided munition. So civilians got the shaft in Japan, just as they did in Germany (Dresden).

Even after two nuclear bombs were dropped and emperor Hirohito decided to capitulate, the fanatical generals attempted to stage a coup d'etat so they could continue fighting, since the utter destruction of their country was more "glorious" than surrender.

Luckily they were unsuccesful.

Listen to me, baby, you got to understand, you're old enough to learn the makings of a man.

They didn't start this, they got invaded and driven away from their homes.
What the state of Israel has done is no better than what Hitler did to the Jews.

1.) Zionism (as formulated in 1947) is bullshit, but the post-war ethnic cleansing of the Jewish citizens within Arab and Muslim countries makes the two sides even in terms of "original sin". There was a forced population exchange along the lines of Greece and Turkey, with both Jews and Palestinians as the victims. For that matter, the original creation of Israel was more along the lines of an ethnic separatists movement with international support by recent immigrants that would have created a small and fragmented Israel out of a land area that was currently predominantly Jewish to begin with; the mass expulsion (mostly in terms of not letting them back in) of Palestinians happened after an existential war, much like 10-15 million ethnic Germans were forced out of traditionally German land areas in the wake of WWII.

2.) There is a huge difference between the holocaust and the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians (and the Middle-Eastern Jews).

Connect the dots. Ahmadinnerjacket is aytollahs bitchboy. He has no real power. His purpose is to provoke the US into doing something reckless.

^absolutely. this is not about ahmadinejad. he's a muppet.

let's be real:
- the US has nuclear weapons. arguing about the merit of them having them is moot from an international security point of view. it can be interesting to consider from an ideological point of view - in an undergraduate university paper kind of way.
- international law is a blunt instrument - it doesn't and won't protect us from nuclear war.

setting aside the posturing on terrorism, palestine, iraq etc in this thread - does anyone seriously believe that iran should have nuclear weapons? if so - you crazy. iran is a basket case republic.